Presidential hopefuls want to fix mobility and inequality, but struggle to connect the two issues

Joe Biden boards Amtrak's Acela Express train following the end of his Vice Presidential term in January 2017. (Photo courtesy of Delaware Online)

Democratic presidential candidates (some of whom have since dropped out of the race) repeatedly referred to transportation when discussing their proposals to address economic inequality during their October debate:

• Pete Buttigieg cited his own transportation habits – his father drove him to school in a GM car, and now he now owns a Chevrolet Cruze – when discussing how corporations, particularly car companies, have decimated the U.S.’s manufacturing sector in the name of profit.
• Kamala Harris described how a person working a low-income job may turn to driving for Uber in hopes of keeping their family fed and housed.
• Beto O’Rourke reminded viewers that GM didn’t pay any federal income tax this past year (actually, GM hasn’t paid any such taxes since the federal government bailed it out).

The candidates’ discussion demonstrated a desire to achieve goals that more balanced transportation connectivity would catalyze.

But the candidates struggle to address the connection between transportation and inequality, continuing a decades-long trend. Despite making some profound points, they have not clearly articulated how mobility’s one-dimensional nature, which forces many working-class people to hand over thousands of dollars to wealthy auto and oil executives each year, exacerbates disparities.

Equitable land use reform is a hot topic, but candidates’ platforms overlook transportation’s role

The 2020 candidates have consistently expressed support for zoning reform, citing this as a way to address racial and economic segregation stemming from historical redlining and other factors. While several have proposed making some federal transportation-related funds contingent on progress in this area, the candidates’ platforms are missing important details and, in some cases, contain provisions that would perpetuate – and potentially even exacerbate – present-day inequality:

• Frontrunner Joe Biden  is the only high-polling candidate to support revision of local zoning regulations explicitly to facilitate more affordable housing near transit.  While some localities, such as the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, have made progress in this area, others continue to struggle. Biden also proposes a $10 billion, 10 year program to bolster transit in “high-poverty areas with limited transportation options” and sets ambitious (albeit vague) goals for higher-quality transit, bike, scooter, and pedestrian infrastructure in urban areas. However, he also proposes a 10 percent increase to highway funding; though he proposes the funding go to states that “embrace smart climate design and pollution reduction,” any road widening would induce more driving and stifle progress toward the mobility- and equality-focused goals he has described.  
• Elizabeth Warren’s American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which she introduced in the Senate this year, would provide $10 billion in grants for infrastructure projects (among other things) on the condition localities reform their zoning regulations. A wide variety of projects would be eligible for the grants, including transit projects. Warren’s platform does cite parking minimums as one type of local regulation that inflates housing costs. However, her transportation proposal (described in a different, more environment-focused section of her platform) is centered largely on electric cars, which would have to be stored somewhere and thus may make it more challenging to lower parking minimums. 
• Bernie Sanders proposes making federal transportation and housing funds contingent on “zoning that ensures racial, economic, and disability integration that makes housing more affordable.” He cites urban interstate highways as a contributor to segregation and sprawl. However, in the climate-focused portion of his platform, Sanders suggests putting an extra $75 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, dedicated primarily to road expansion, to help provide “resilience and justice”.
• Cory Booker proposes tying eligibility for an array of federal infrastructure programs (including the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) that provide localities a total of $16 billion in funds to zoning reform progress, though he doesn’t specify the milestones that would be used to measure this progress. Also, in the Senate, he has introduced the Transit to Trails Act, which if enacted would fund improved transit service connecting low-income communities and people of color to shared public spaces such as parks.
• Mike Bloomberg's plan shares traits of Warren's; he proposes $10 billion in competitive grants for "municipalities that remove obstacles to the construction of affordable housing in neighborhoods with good schools, transportation, and economic opportunities." While he does not specify the nature of the transportation, his proposal also states that he "prioritized housing near transportation" when mayor of New York, where people often use transit to get where they need to go.     

Urban planning-related aspects of other candidates’ platforms are less specific, but their proposals and experiences still contain some interesting insights into how candidates perceive the inequality-transportation relationship.

• Andrew Yang is the only candidate in contention to explicitly mention NIMBYism in his platform as a challenge to expanding affordable housing supply. Yang also is unique in specifically referencing the U.S.’s massive transit maintenance backlog – the cause of many of the service disruptions that cost low-income workers wages and even threaten their employment – though the transit-related aspects of his plan prioritize electrification of the country’s entire transit fleet (at a cost of $200 billion) rather than just making service more extensive and reliable.
• As a mayor, Buttigieg currently has more direct influence on local transit than any other candidate within striking distance, appointing three of the nine board members who govern South Bend’s TRANSPO bus system. That system – like many others in the U.S. – has suffered a ridership decline in the face of limited service hours and extent. However, the South Bend region recently started a pilot program that subsidizes bus rides for some low-income people. Also, a CityLab analysis found the region to be among the top ten small U.S. metros to live without a car, a way of life that puts as much as $9,300 per year – almost as much as Yang’s proposed $1,000-a-month Universal Basic Income – back in peoples’ pockets.

A national focus on transportation would help leaders address many issues, including inequality

“Transportation is fundamental and affects every aspect of a person’s quality of life,” Scott Goldstein, Policy Director at advocacy organization Transportation for America, told me. “It determines whether you can access jobs, how many jobs you can access, [and] is also central to health outcomes, which certainly relate to inequality.”

Some legislators do fight for the transportation needs of their constituents. For example, Congress’s Future of Transportation Caucus, announced October 19, consists of 21 House Democrats who have committed to supporting more equitable transit. And representatives of rural areas, on both sides of the aisle, have fought to sustain and expand lifeline Amtrak service in their districts.   

But despite these occasional initiatives, transportation doesn’t get the sustained attention from policymakers that these impacts necessitate.

“Transportation is often high on the second list of priorities,” Goldstein said. “It needs to be high on the first list, if not the highest.”

Given this, it’s to be expected that 2020 candidates’ proposals and comments on transportation consist of scattered statements, presented mainly in the context of personal experiences and other policy areas, rather than a detailed plan to improve connectivity itself.

Personal transportation experiences can provide candidates beneficial perspective. For example, many of the candidates – who are seen regularly on Amtrak’s Acela Express train, sometimes even running to catch it or riding together – strongly tout high-speed rail.

But such perspective may not fully inform policymakers on the consequences of existing U.S. transportation. Accordingly, they may act on misguided conclusions that stem from these consequences, but lack context.

For example, the Urban Institute found that car ownership has “considerably greater” effect on earnings than access to (inadequate) transit. Researchers also concluded that those with cars experience “less exposure to poverty,” and “lower levels of cancer risk,” while also moving “to neighborhoods with higher levels of school performance” than those without automobile access. The organization subsequently came out in support of policies that would increase car ownership.

Goldstein emphasized the difference every person can make in facilitating a more cohesive national discussion on transportation connectivity, overcoming the present-day cacophony and catalyzing policy that could have far-reaching benefits, including reduced inequality.

“It takes the public to stand up and request,” he said. “It [also] takes policymakers willing to do something a little different, and be willing to have a tough conversation.”